This inspection took place on the 16 May 2017 and was unannounced.

Kingswood House provides accommodation for older people requiring support with their personal care. The service can accommodate up to 24 people. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people living at the home.

At the last inspection, in April 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained overall Good but that the provider needed to ensure that there was always sufficient enough staff to safely meet people’s changing needs.

Staff were appropriately recruited and people were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision, training and ongoing professional development that they required to work effectively in their roles. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

People developed positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and courtesy. People had detailed personalised care plans in place which enabled staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences.

People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints that they may receive.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The provider and registered manager were visible, actively looking at ways to improve the service. There were effective quality assurance systems and audits in place; action was taken to address any shortfalls.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 16 April 2015. A breach of legal requirements was found.

After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements and ensure people’s liberty was not deprived without proper authorisation.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met the legal requirements.

This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Kingswood House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

During this inspection on 11 August 2015, we found that improvements had been made. Appropriate arrangements were now in place to identify potential areas where someone’s liberty might be at risk of being deprived. Applications had also been made, as is legally required; to seek authorisation to restrict some people’s liberty in order to protect them and keep them safe.

This inspection took place on 16 April 2015 and was unannounced.

Kingswood House provides a service for up to 24 people, who may have a range of care needs including dementia and physical disabilities. There were 17 people living in the home on the day of the inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection of Kingswood House on 25 September 2013, we asked the provider to make improvements to ensure that the temperature of medication storage was monitored to ensure it was kept within the recommended range. We also asked that the balance of medication stored in the home be better accounted for. We found during this inspection that the provider had taken positive action to address both these areas. Systems were in place to ensure people’s medicines were managed in a safe way and that they got their medication when they needed it.

We found that the service worked to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 key principles, which state that a person's capacity should always be assumed, and assessments of capacity must be undertaken where it is believed that a person cannot make decisions about their care and support. However, we found some people’s liberty had been deprived without proper authorisation.

Staff had been trained to recognise signs of potential abuse and keep people safe. People felt safe living at the service.

Processes were in place to manage identifiable risks within the service and ensure people did not have their freedom unnecessarily restricted.

There were sufficient numbers of staff who had the right skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

The provider carried out proper recruitment checks on new staff to make sure they were suitable to work at the service.

Staff had received training to carry out their roles, including support to achieve national health and social care qualifications.

People had enough to eat and drink. Assistance was provided to those who needed help with eating and drinking, in a discreet and helpful manner.

The service had developed positive working relationships with external healthcare professionals to ensure effective arrangements were in place to meet people’s healthcare needs.

Staff were motivated and provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They treated people with kindness and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity at all times.

We saw that people were given regular opportunities to express their views on the service they received and to be actively involved in making decisions about their care and support.

People’s social needs were provided for. We saw people preparing for activities that had been arranged on the day of the inspection.

A complaints procedure had been developed to let people know how to raise concerns about the service if they needed to.

Systems were also in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and drive continuous improvement.

We spoke with four people about the service they received. They told us that they were happy with their care. One person told us “Staff are marvellous, I cannot fault them”; Another person told us “It’s very homely here”; and another person commented “we are well fed here”.

We spoke with three members of staff. All had a good knowledge of people’s needs and preferences. One staff member explained that there were very few changes to the staff team explaining that people “know who is helping them get up each morning.”

We saw that medicines were stored securely but the temperatures of the medication storage were not being monitored to ensure medication was stored within the recommended range.

We saw that new staff had induction programme followed by on on-going training to ensure that they had the skills and knowledge to support and care people living in the home.

When we visited on 4 May 2012 we spoke with four people about the service they receive. They were happy with their care. One person told us that the staff were " helpful and friendly." We spoke with two relatives of someone living in the home. They spoke highly of the care. One relative told us people were "extremely well looked after." One of the relatives told us she "wish(ed) there were more staff" as staff had limited time to sit and talk with people.

We spoke with four people about the service they receive. They were happy with their support. One person told us that the staff were “ helpful and friendly.” We spoke with two relatives of someone living in the home. They spoke highly of the care. One relative told us people were “extremely well looked after.” One of the relatives told us she “wish(ed) there were more staff” as staff had limited time to sit and talk with people.